The great thing about Garnacha is that when the Garnacha renaissance kicked in, there was no shortage of old bush Garnacha vines that were already 50+ years old. So, a new producer could come in, or an old producer could update their techniques, and suddenly bottle a $10-$15 wine with incredible fruit sources.

I have trouble with labeling wines like inexpensive Garnacha "modern"... it's almost like a 5 year old who gets diagnosed with ADD. I just think it is ambitious to assign such tags on something that is just made to be good and clean without conscious thought given to style.

Something like jam-in-a-bottle Valsacro Dioro, or liquid drain-o Numathia, I consider to be wines specifically made with the intention of being overblown, rather than trying to produce something natural.

Joe, I see your point. Years ago, I was drinking only Monte Real in splits, then I discovered Moreno Wines in London and progressed from there. Still drink Monte now of course.
Lately I have been drinking more reds from other areas due to a terrific store here in town. I am hooked and love to try anything new. This Gil garnacha is great wine, good price and more accessible in style to some of the other wines I have tasted. That is not a bad thing in my books, wait for my TN.
There will be many TNs from Spain flowing from my pen!!

Victor de la Serna wrote:The 'certainly' comes from your humble opinion, I guess? Or from some certifiable certainty?

Both.

I guess presumptuousness comes with young age. If you can't offer any certification, your certainty is not certifiable. So don't offend anyone's intelligence, please. BTW - defining Franco Españolas or Paternina as "solid choices" in Rioja is an utter joke.

Victor de la Serna wrote:I guess presumptuousness comes with young age. If you can't offer any certification, your certainty is not certifiable. So don't offend anyone's intelligence, please. BTW - defining Franco Españolas or Paternina as "solid choices" in Rioja is an utter joke.

I guess pomposity comes with old age. Since when do people need to provide certification for supporting a wine? Do you look to make sure someone else has certified a wine before you say that you like it? What is the last vintage of either Paternina Conde de los Andes or Franco Espanolas Royal you tasted? I consider it a good sign, in either event, that you are back-pedaling away from your earlier list of six producers down to two. I expect your next post there will just be one gripe.

Despite your assertions that traditional Rioja is ubiquitous, there's not a whole lot of producers worth drinking (that are exported, anyway). For the handful of producers that work to make traditional wines with an attention to detail, there's a whole lot more that make traditional wines that are dirty and poor. La Rioja Alta 890 might be the best traditional Rioja, is (current) Paternina or Franco Espanolas even close? Nope. But I've had experiences with them that make me think they are worth drinking if a better alternative is not available.

That was what I was trying to say in my post!! Here in my area, we are not seeing the Monte Real, the Tondonia, the Bosconia. We are seeing new-wave wines from other producers which have their own appeal, and do not ressemble the wines I used to buy around here 20 years ago when the Liquor Board was in control.

As far as I can remember, 1995 for Royal and 1991 for Conde de los Andes. Perfectly forgettable. Why the sudden interest in recent vintages of wines that, as is often stated here and elsewhere, need 30 years to show at their best?

JoePerry wrote:Producers like Paternina have long histories. The Golden Age would be vintages up to 1964. The dark ages extend through the 80's and even early 90's in some cases.

I want to make sure you have tasted current wines from these producers, rather than cast judgement based on what has been.

Exactly: producers have long histories. And you are the one recommending these wines to Richard! I suppose you are not recommending that he seek out a bottle of 1928 Royal at some Sotheby's sale?

Paternina and Franco-Españolas were acquired by the mega-financial group Rumasa in the 1970s. The group was nationalized by the Socialist government in 1983, then re-sold in chunks. Franco-Españolas and Paternina were acquired by Rioja businessman Marcos Eguizábal. Both wineries had been on the decline for decades, but under Eguizábal for the past 20 years, they have gone down the drain even further.

How could you chastise Arienzo and extol Paternina? At least, Arienzo tastes like wine...

Victor de la Serna wrote: (Note that the name is Montecillo, not Monticello.)

Many thanks, Víctor, for correcting our young Joey on the Montecillo score (he reminds me of a girl at the nearby Gourmet Garage who insists on calling marcona almonds "maricona" almonds). I believe what he is trying to do, as a fledgling Rioja Guru, is to score his own, personal, trademarked, endelessly-repeated error. I think this could very well be his very own "Dominico de Pingus".

Oh, and Joe, it's a good thing I hadn't seen this before we saw each other on Thursday. The vinous harm I could have inflicted... No wonder the words "Rioja Santiago" were rolling off your tongue so merrily.

JoePerry wrote:Because, Victor, this is (or was) for Richard to find wines currently being made.

Producers like Paternina have long histories. The Golden Age would be vintages up to 1964. The dark ages extend through the 80's and even early 90's in some cases.

I want to make sure you have tasted current wines from these producers, rather than cast judgement based on what has been.

Best,Joe

Sorry, Joe, but I seem to be more with Víctor than with you on this whole issue. You should check recent history of these bodegas (as well as have some of their product inflicted upon you from time to time) before speaking.

On Víctor's contention that Arienzo "tastes like wine", I guess I must taste some, not having done so for about 8 years. Of course, if Paternina is the point of comparison, the bar is set pretty low.

Victor de la Serna wrote:I guess presumptuousness comes with young age. If you can't offer any certification, your certainty is not certifiable. So don't offend anyone's intelligence, please. BTW - defining Franco Españolas or Paternina as "solid choices" in Rioja is an utter joke.

I guess pomposity comes with old age. Since when do people need to provide certification for supporting a wine? Do you look to make sure someone else has certified a wine before you say that you like it? What is the last vintage of either Paternina Conde de los Andes or Franco Espanolas Royal you tasted? I consider it a good sign, in either event, that you are back-pedaling away from your earlier list of six producers down to two. I expect your next post there will just be one gripe.

Despite your assertions that traditional Rioja is ubiquitous, there's not a whole lot of producers worth drinking (that are exported, anyway). For the handful of producers that work to make traditional wines with an attention to detail, there's a whole lot more that make traditional wines that are dirty and poor. La Rioja Alta 890 might be the best traditional Rioja, is (current) Paternina or Franco Espanolas even close? Nope. But I've had experiences with them that make me think they are worth drinking if a better alternative is not available.

Best,Joe

p.s. "A priest, a rabbi, and a midget walk into a bar" -- is a joke.

Joey, this bit about you being "the new LL" has to stop. These fights with Víctor are becoming tiresome, even to me (the originator of the genre).

And what the hell's all this about Paternina and Franco-Españolas? Are you now a shill for them?:-)

Oh, and having sampled the 1994 Conde de los Andes too recently for comfort, I can say that it isn't good. Never was. Never will be. Curiously enough, a '76 was poured at the same table that was equally as crappy.

There's a sad reality about the whole struggle between "traditional" and "modern" Rioja: Under both rubrics there have been some terrible wines made. Regardless of how potable one may find the "modern" style, one can assess, if only academically, those producers who achieve balance, even a certain grace within the overstuffed, over-made-up clunkiness. Hell, there are even some "harlot-with-a-heart-of-gold" cases. On the opposite end, one should not embrace "traditional" as equal to "good". The gods know I've had to spit out some very evil dreck at tastings, more often than I've smiled about, say, an 890, 904, Ardanza, Bosconia, Tondonia, Imperial, Prado Enea, etc.

Bob Parsons Alberta. wrote:Joe, I see your point. Years ago, I was drinking only Monte Real in splits, then I discovered Moreno Wines in London and progressed from there. Still drink Monte now of course.Lately I have been drinking more reds from other areas due to a terrific store here in town. I am hooked and love to try anything new. This Gil garnacha is great wine, good price and more accessible in style to some of the other wines I have tasted. That is not a bad thing in my books, wait for my TN.There will be many TNs from Spain flowing from my pen!!

Bob,

Having been a Monte Real fan for many years, al I can say is that our moment under the unbeleivable-quality-at-a-great-price sun is over. Monte Real Reserva was "modernized" with the 2000 vintage to be a more concentrated, plusher wine with added new oak. It hardly resembles its predecessors from at least 20 vintages that I've drunk and loved so much. Of course, the Monte Real "revamp" didn't come out of the blue. A few years ago they began to release something called "Monte Real Crianza", with a more modern label than the traditional, extra-gaudy yellow one. In retrospect, that wine seems like an obvious prototype for what they were going to do with the Reserva.

Fortunately, though Bodegas Riojanas makes a fully-modern horror called Gran Albina, they seem to have left the original Viña Albina Reserva and Gran Reserva bottlings alone. They're stil great value, but in a lighter style than Monte Real.

Jenise wrote:Has Remelluri fallen? I was surprised not to see it on anyone's list.

IMO, Remelluri isn't traditional.

They had a long time when all I could call them was "corked" (had sooooo many corked bottles of certain vintages it wasn't even funny). Nowadays, they seem to have gone to the dark side, yes. But I distinctly remember enjoying some Remelluri wines of the early eighties in the late eighties, back when young Joey was but a wee tot. They were rather traditional, and made unique by the altitude of the Remelluri vineyards.

Otto Nieminen wrote:Joe, thanks for the list - very useful. But what do you think of Coto de Imaz? We have the '96 GR here, which I think is the most "old style" Rioja available here.

Methinks El Coto de Rioja (makers of Coto de Imaz) is now owned by Bass, or some other such mega-conglomerate, no? Though the wines are very correct, my one complaint about them is that, even in the best vintages, they seem rather soulless.

Bob Parsons Alberta. wrote:Thanks Ian, although in a state of shock with your revelation about goings-on with Monte Real!!

It wasn't Ian with those revelations, but me, Bob. I remember receiving a press release from Bodegas Riojanas a year and a half ago regarding the changes in Monte Real Reserva and just staring at the computer screen in disbelief. Somehow, having been a customer of the brand for many years, I felt betrayed.

One spot of good news, though. Monte Real Gran Reserva will remain the same at least for another couple of vintages. And the current release, which is the '98, is pretty damn good.